Your Money: Popular Freakonomicshttp://peacecorpsworldwide.org/popular-freakonomics
It is very difficult to cull from the financial news media what really happens behind the scenes on Wall St. and in Washington. Much of it has been masked from the public view, especially over the past 20 years. This has led to an abysmal ignorance of matters economic, which has enabled much of the financial excesses of late. I intend to pull back the veil of mystery in order to explain and analyze the meaning of the many changes to our economic system in this decade. Much of Popular Freakonomics is culled from my weekly syndicated columns – Popular Economics Weekly and The Mortgage Corner – that I have been writing for ten years. Enjoy, and feel free to comment. — Harlan Green, Turkey VMon, 30 Mar 2015 14:42:10 +0000http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7enhourly1Why Doesn’t Government Want Fannie, Freddie to Succeed?http://peacecorpsworldwide.org/popular-freakonomics/2015/03/30/why-doesnt-government-want-fannie-freddie-to-succeed/
http://peacecorpsworldwide.org/popular-freakonomics/2015/03/30/why-doesnt-government-want-fannie-freddie-to-succeed/#commentsMon, 30 Mar 2015 14:42:10 +0000Harlan Greenhttp://peacecorpsworldwide.org/popular-freakonomics/2015/03/30/why-doesnt-government-want-fannie-freddie-to-succeed/The Mortgage Corner

At a time when the housing market is just beginning to recover, the US Treasury wants to close down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two GSEntities under government conservatorship.

Counselor to the Secretary for Housing Finance Policy Dr. Michael Stegman, speaking at Monday’s National Council of State Housing Agencies Legislative Conference, said, "I know that many of you want to know where we are on housing finance reform. On this subject, let me be clear: the Administration stands by our belief that the only way to responsibly end the conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is through legislation that puts in place a sustainable housing finance system that has private capital at risk ahead of taxpayers, while preserving access to mortgage credit during severe downturns."

But Timothy Howard, chief economist and a senior Fannie Mae executive for 23 years, says “Fannie Mae never experienced a threat to its solvency because of difficulty rolling over its maturing debt, nor did it need to sell assets at depressed prices to survive. The company never experienced a market crisis. At the time it was put into conservatorship, Fannie Mae’s capital significantly exceeded its regulatory minimum.”

So dissolving Fannie and Freddie makes no sense for several reasons. There is no financing model that has yet been created to replace both their securitization structure that in effect guarantees almost all conforming and Hi-Balance conforming loans, which account for more than 60 percent of loan originations today.

And, they are generating immense profits for the US Government that has commandeered all of their profits since a 2012 amendment to the 2008 conservatorship agreement. “As of last December, the Treasury had received a total of $225.4 billion from the companies,” says NYTimes Gretchen Morgensen in a recent column. “An additional $153.3 billion in receipts from Fannie and Freddie could be generated through fiscal year 2025, according to estimates in the 2016 budget offered by the president.”

So why does the government want to close them down when their sometimes too strict underwriting standards have brought loan default rates back to historical levels, and Fannie Mae has repaid more than the $186 billion lent to them?

The quick answer is that our government fears they may have to bail out the GSEs again, putting taxpayers at risk, with their current structure as stock holding corporations, but with an implicit government guarantee that they can’t fail.

Treasury officials (and the banking lobby) maintain it gives them an unfair interest rate advantage that has enabled them to keep lower capital reserves, and thus a lower expense overhead, therefore impeding the development of so-called “private-label” mortgages generated by commercial lenders, but not guaranteed by the GSEs.

Morgensen highlighted the ongoing debate on whether Fannie and Freddie should be re-privatized in describing a lawsuit by a major stockholder of the GSEs whose stock is in effect worthless, unless the government allows them to rebuild their equity.

“The problem with the apparent involvement by Treasury and White House officials in the decision to commandeer Fannie’s and Freddie’s earnings is that by congressional statute, the F.H.F.A. is supposed to be an independent agency, tasked by law to protect the safety and soundness of the companies. Letting the companies’ profits flow to the Treasury had the opposite effect. Allowing them to rebuild their capital with profits after they repaid the taxpayer seems more like it.”

So the only danger to taxpayers seems to be that created by the U.S. Treasury and FHFA, in not allowing them to rebuild capital as a cushion against a future housing downturn. Even if there was another housing crisis, Fannie and Freddie today would not be allowed back into the subprime market that guaranteed loans from such as Countrywide Financial that was in turn bailed out by Bank of America.

“Intervention in support of banks was done in response to sudden and uncontrollable liquidity crises that required immediate government assistance to keep the companies from failing, and involved actions and tools intended to achieve that result (not always successfully),” says Howard. “The act of placing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship was not a response to any imminent threat of failure but rather a policy decision initiated at a time of Treasury’s choosing, and involved actions and tools intended to make and keep the companies insolvent.”

Former Fannie Mae exec Timothy Howard also thinks Fannie and Freddie can still function as viable institutions. “There is no credible basis for the oft-repeated contention that they are a “failed business model,” he said. “Even after Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made unwise decisions to lower their underwriting standards to try to compete with private-label securitization, their loans acquired between 2005 and 2008 still performed four times as well as loans from that period financed through private-label securities, and more than twice as well as loans made and retained by commercial banks during that time.”

“The argument for bringing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac out of conservatorship and using an amended version them as the basis of the future mortgage finance system is extremely straightforward: their credit guaranty mechanism is low-cost, efficient and effective, and has a proven track record of success.”

Need we have any other reason to break the gridlock that has kept the GSEs in conservatorship, now that the housing market is recovering? Their model works, and without them the housing market would be in far worse shape.

New U.S. homes sold at an annual rate of 539,000 in February to mark the best month of sales in seven years, the government reported Tuesday. The pace of sales for January was also revised up sharply to 500,000. It’s the first time annualized sales have hit 500,000 or more for two straight months since early 2008.

“This is 7.8 percent above the revised January rate of 500,000 and is 24.8 percent above the February 2014 estimate of 432,000," said the Census Bureau. And it reduced the for sale inventory to a 4.7 month supply, which is low considering the pent up demand for housing sales sure to grow this year, with low inflation and rising employment.

Low inflation should be a factor in housing sales this year, if oil prices stabilize, since it boosts householders’ take home pay. Price rises moderated last year. The Federal Housing Finance Authority just reported that same-home prices of homes with conforming loans rose 5.1 percent in January, down slightly from 5.4 percent in December. But we are in mid-winter, so look for more price rises as the spring selling season kicks in.

Overall CPI inflation was unchanged in February, which is better than the negative -0.1 percent drop in January. Oil prices have stabilized around $50/barrel for Brent Crude at the moment, but who knows what this year will bring with so much unrest with major oil producers in the Middle East, and even Russia?

CNBC’s Diana Olick reports that lack of existing-home inventory is the real problem. “Lack of supply of existing homes is pushing prices again, up 7.5 percent year over year to a median sale price of $202,600 in February, according to the NAR, that reported slower February existing home sales,” she says. “And don’t blame it on the weather, according to NAR chief economist Lawrence Yun.

“He calls this reacceleration of price gains, "unhealthy," per Olick. “Affordability had been helping the housing recovery inch along, but now it is weakening and fast becoming a roadblock to homeownership. Still-rising rents are contributing to the problem, keeping first-time buyers from being able to save for a down payment.”

Total existing-home sales, which are completed transactions that include single-family homes, townhomes, condominiums and co-ops, rose 1.2 percent to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 4.88 million in February from 4.82 million in January. Sales are 4.7 percent higher than a year ago and above year-over-year totals for the fifth consecutive month.

Lawrence Yun, NAR chief economist, says although February sales showed modest improvement, there’s been some stagnation in the market in recent months. “Insufficient supply appears to be hampering prospective buyers in several areas of the country and is hiking prices to near unsuitable levels,” he said. “Stronger price growth is a boon for homeowners looking to build additional equity, but it continues to be an obstacle for current buyers looking to close before rates rise.”

The median existing-home price for all housing types in February was $202,600, which is 7.5 percent above February 2014. This marks the 36th consecutive month of year-over-year price gains and the largest since last February (8.8 percent).

Hence those rising prices and low inventories should spur more new-home construction this year. But housing construction is barely in recovery mode, and has a long way to go to approach the 800,000 to 1 million unit per year average of past decades.

Texas Senator Ted Cruz is about to announce his candidacy for the 2016 presidential campaign. What would his presidency look like, if he were elected? “Mr. Cruz has also begun championing a message of economic populism,” said the NYTimes on his announcement of candidacy, “denouncing income inequality and borrowing the “two Americas” metaphor used most famously by former Senator John Edwards in two unsuccessful campaigns for the Democratic presidential nomination.”

Let’s start with his silliest proposal to abolish the IRS. It tells us how he really views income inequality. There would then be no means to collect the taxes that pay his Senator salary. So he would have to work for nothing. Is that how he will tackle the scourge of income inequality afflicting those Americans that work for little or nothing?

We also know what his presidency might look like from another far right Tea Party favorite and potential candidate’s agenda; Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. Walker’s first priority has been to downgrade union organizing and education funding in Wisconsin, in order to deprive Democrats of union support, as well as dumb down his own electorate. The result has been the lowest job creation and growth rates of all neighboring states.

Senator Cruz’s programs would have a similar result—would in fact increase income inequality—as he has opposed every economic program that would better ordinary Americans’ lives, including raising the minimum wage. “If you raise the minimum wage, the inevitable effect will be, number one, young people will lose their jobs or not be able to get their first jobs,” he said in 2013 in reaction to President Obama’s inauguration speech that included a call to raise the national minimum wage to $9 per hour.

But history has shown just the opposite effect. Where ever the minimum wage has been raised—such as in Seattle, Washington where it is $15/hr., or the state of Minnesota, where it will be $9.50/hour for large employers in 2016, employment is thriving. Seattle’s unemployment rate is now under 5 percent, and Minnesota’s unemployment rate has dropped to 3.6 percent, the lowest in 13 years.

He also opposes any climate change legislation that would reduce our dependence on carbon-creating fossil fuels, including his support of the Keystone XL Pipeline, and more offshore oil drilling. Yet even the Pentagon has documented the extreme economic costs, including future wars, of ignoring the effects of Global Warming.

And how about his call for greater liberty? He also opposes all forms of amnesty for Illegals, or ‘undocumented’ immigrants, though he’s the son of a Cuban-born immigrant. This would greatly restrict the freedom of those immigrants to become American citizens, of course.

Cruz has particularly stressed his opposition to President Obama’s executive actions on immigration, said the PBS Newshour. The Texas senator filed a bill blocking the president’s actions, which allow more undocumented residents to gain legal status, including the administration’s waivers for young people brought to the U.S. as children. Cruz argues that those actions encouraged increased illegal immigration.

And how about his call to dissolve the Affordable Care Act? Killing Obamacare would increase the poverty of the poorest and sickest among US that cannot afford, or would be ineligible for private health care insurance.

No, Senator Cruz’s presidency would neither create more liberty, nor better the lives of the poorest that suffer most from income inequality. Those liberties have been under steady assault by Tea Party members, in particular, with their no compromise positions on even the most basic poverty alleviating programs.

So his words don’t match his actions. Isn’t that called pandering, when a politician will say anything to win votes?

We are in the midst of celebrating the 50th anniversary of President Johnson’s Great Society, enacted for the most part from 1964-66, perhaps the greatest legislative achievement of any president since FDR and the New Deal.

We know how FDR’s New Deal improved the lives of millions, literally preventing tens of thousands from starving to death during the Great Depression, and giving millions more a useful and productive public service job when there were none to be had in the private sector.

But the results of the Great Society are perhaps more mixed. That’s only if we wonder what might have happened if the U.S. economy was an ideological utopia, which didn’t go through its cycles of boom and bust, or the Vietnam War, or an Arab Oil Embargo, or 5 recession since 1980—the housing bubble and Great Recession being the latest examples.

Many of the programs were stymied by those events that took money away from social programs; in particular the Office of Economic Opportunity that funded many public programs similar to the Depression’s WPA. Conservatives’ ire is particularly directed at the spending for anti-poverty programs that were supposed to eliminate poverty, but were in fact meant to give the poorest a ‘leg up’ in their race to escape poverty.

Spending to help the poor doubled from 1965-68, and within 10 years the percentage of Americans living below the poverty line declined to 12 percent from 20 percent. Those were also the years of highest economic growth of the middle class. The rate has fluctuated greatly in the past 50 years. According to the census, 15.9 percent of Americans lived in poverty in 2012, which is just a couple of points lower than where the Census estimates it stood in 1965.

We really don’t know, for instance, how many jobs were created by the Office of Economic Opportunity. Those were also boom years when President Johnson dropped the top marginal tax rate from 91 to 71 percent. More than 4 years of 6 and 7 percent Gross National Product growth followed, employing anyone that wanted a job. The U.S. Gross National Product (Since 1991 the U.S. has used Gross Domestic Product as a more accurate measure of US output.) rose 10 percent in the first year of the tax cut, and economic growth averaged a rate of 4.5 percent from 1961 to 1968, says Wikipedia.

Johnson’s tax cut measure triggered what one historian described as "the greatest prosperity of the postwar years," according to the Washington Post. GNP increased by 7, 8 and 9 percent in 1964 to 1966, respectively. The unemployment rate fell below 5 percent. But the OEO did much more, as did most of the Great Society programs.

Do we really have to be reminded of the Clear Air and Water Acts that have kept our water and air cleaner than they would have been otherwise? Or the Civil and Voting Rights Acts that banned discrimination and abolished the blatant ban on African Americans voting in the South? Or the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid that has reduced the poverty rate of seniors from 1 in 7 living below the poverty line in 1965 to 1 out of 3 in 2013?

We also now have consumer protection laws such as the Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act requiring labeling of dangerous chemicals in cigarettes, and the National Highway Safety Administration setting safety standards for our highways. Almost all of the Great Society programs have saved or improved the lives of millions of Americans.

That is something that can only be measured in non-economic ways. Head Start, for instance, has served more than 31 million children from birth to age 5 since 1965. In 2012-13, 1.13 million children and pregnant women were served by Head Start, according to the program. The vast majority – 82 percent – were children ages 3 and 4.

And how do we measure the value of its cultural contributions, such as PBS, the Public Broadcasting System that has 987 stations nationwide – most locally owned and operated – that broadcast NPR programming?

The Great Society also led to the fruition of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington and created the National Endowment for the Humanities, which is one of the largest arts and culture funders in the United States.

These institutions and programs of the Great Society have in fact given a national voice to our hopes and dreams, because a nation that doesn’t care for its citizens’ hopes and dreams is a nation that has no future.

One lament by Fed Chairperson Janet Yellen and others has been the low labor participation rate of the prime-age workers—those 25 to 54 year-olds that have dropped out of the labor force, or are working part time. But that may be changing as we approach full employment.

The Atlanta Fed has just published an optimistic study that says they might be coming back to work. Atlanta Fed President Dennis Lockhart commented on it in a recent speech:

“Over the last few years, there has been a worrisome outflow of prime-age workers—especially men—from the labor force. I believe some of these people will be enticed back into formal work arrangements if the economy improves further.”

The decline in the "shadow labor force"—the share of the prime-age population who say they want a job but haven’t been looking (i.e., are not technically counted as unemployed)—demonstrates the cyclical nature of the labor market, says Lockhart. For the last year and half, the share of these individuals in the labor force has been generally declining (see the chart).

That’s why the ability of the prime-age shadow labor force to find work is improving at the same time that the Labor Force Participation rate of the prime-age population is stabilizing. Taken together, this trend is consistent with improving job market opportunities and further absorption of the nation’s slack labor resources, says the Atlanta Fed.

What might be enticing them back into the labor force? Rising wages and salaries, of course. About 70 percent of U.S. companies indicate that wages are starting to outpace inflation, according to a recent Duke University study of 500 CFOs. Wage growth should be at least 3 percent in tech, services and consulting, manufacturing and health care.

"The U.S. is finally entering a new phase in the economic recovery," said John Graham, a finance professor at Duke’s Fuqua School of Business and director of the survey. "The first few years of recovery were ‘jobless’ and, even as job growth picked up over the past year, wages remained stagnant. Finally, we are starting to see wage growth for employees that outstrips inflation. Given that CFOs expect continued strong employment growth, it is surprising that wage pressures are not even greater."

But wage growth will remain subdued at about one-third of companies that indicated employee pay will not outpace inflation in the survey. In particular, employees in retail/wholesale, transportation/energy and communications/media should expect pay hikes of less than 2 percent. The primary reasons are weak company financial performance, intense product market competition that keeps a lid on wages (because of need to keep production costs lean?), and minimal labor market pressure in these industries.

We said last week that analyzing about three decades of census data—from 1980 to 2012—the study found that on average, young workers are now 30 years old when they first earn a median-wage income of about $42,000, a marker of financial independence, up from 26 years old in 1980.

But with increasing employment and wage pressures, the financial well-being of younger workers should improve. It isn’t just the millennial generation of 18 to 36 year-olds that has suffered from the Great Recession, in other words.

Breaking news. The latest Homeownership & Vacancy Survey, released by the Census Bureau, estimated household formation surged to 1.7 million in 2014 from 400,000 the previous year. That is really big news. Household formation, which is the bottom line demand factor for RE sales, mortgage financing, as well as the insurance and construction industries—in fact, anything related to the housing market–may finally begin to show growth from the horrible post-Great Recession years.

This graph tells the story. Projections were for a recovery to 800,000 new households in 2014, but it looks like Millennials are beginning to leave home, or even college, and form new households in greater numbers—especially the oldest ages from 30 to 36 years. And most demographers agree millennials were born between 1980 to 1996, which means the oldest are reaching the age when they want to start a family, and that usually means buying a home.

Many of those have been renting, and we actually saw a 2.1 million surge in rental units in 2014, which has to account for many of those new households, according to the Census Bureau survey.

In fact, over the past year all the growth in net household formations has been among renters, according to the U.S. Census. For those 35 years old and younger, their home ownership rate has fallen from 44 percent to 36 percent over the past decade, which is why construction of multi-family apartments is at the highest level in a quarter-century this year.

And we know why. They can’t afford to buy until they reach an older age—in fact 30 years of age is when they achieve the median income wage of $42,000, according to a new Georgetown University study.

Through analyzing about three decades of census data—from 1980 to 2012—the study found that on average, young workers are now 30 years old when they first earn a median-wage income of about $42,000, a marker of financial independence, up from 26 years old in 1980.

Economists now estimate millennials will spend some $1.6 trillion on home purchases and $600 billion on rent over the next five years, more per person than any other generation with more of them opting for more affordable rents versus paying the big price tags to buy homes, according to a new report from The Demand Institute, a non-profit think tank operated by The Conference Board and Nielsen. Millennials will form just over eight million new households, albeit most of them rental households, as we said.

But there is some good income news. The 2014 numbers aren’t in for a breakdown in median incomes, but the Q4 2014 Federal Reserve Flow of Funds report says the net worth of households and nonprofits rose to $82.9 trillion during the fourth quarter of 2014. The value of directly and indirectly held corporate equities increased $742 billion and the value of real estate rose $356 billion.

This can only boost the millennial generation’s financial well-being, as well, and so the housing market and its ancillary industries.

Record low interest rates are holding, in spite of the latest stock market selloffs, and may remain low throughout 2015. Why? Oil prices are still below $50/barrel, and overall prices are falling throughout the developed world. The Eurozone in particular has fallen into such deflationary times that some euro bonds have negative interest rates. That means holders of those bonds have to literally pay interest to hold them (i.e., government issued bonds), believe it or not.

This is while the U.S. inflation rate has fallen to 1.3 percent, below the Fed’s 2 percent target that would mean prices are rising enough to sustain economic growth—in part because of those plunging oil prices. And because low oil prices will probably be sustained for at least 2 years, according to energy analysts, Janet Yellen’s Fed shouldn’t be tempted to raise their rates until later this year, if at all.

Oil prices are likely to stay at $60 a barrel or lower for the next two years as US shale extraction continues to suppress prices, according to the International Energy Agency’s latest report. After plunging from $115 a barrel in June to little more than $45 in January, the price of Brent crude has rallied recently, but the IEA said price pressures could have further to go.

“Despite expectations of tightening balances by end-2015, downward market pressures may not have run their course just yet,” the IEA, which advises mainly developed economies on the oil market, said in a monthly report.

There’s another reason for the Fed not to raise rates anytime soon, even though the so-called “confidence fairies” (P Krugman’s term) demand it; which are mainly deficit hawks that see inflation right around the corner, even when there’s none.

Because we are still not close to full employment, in spite of February’s 5.5 percent unemployment rate. Annual household median incomes after inflation have plunged 7.42 percent since the Great Recession, from $68,931 to $63,815. And history both here and in Europe has shown that tightening credit when household incomes haven’t recovered (either by raising interest rates, or otherwise restricting credit) can stop an economic recovery in its tracks.

That also means today’s long term mortgage rates, such as for the conforming 30-year fixed rate—should remain at or below 4 percent for the rest of 2015. Today, the 30-year conforming rate is 3.75 percent, still a very affordable mortgage.

We are already getting predictions on the upcoming (Friday) U.S. unemployment report. If in line with last year’s 3 million total, it works out to 250,000 nonfarm payroll jobs (i.e., excluding the self-employed) per month. The Bureau of Labor Stats payroll report is considered the more accurate of the 2 reports—Establishment (payrolls only) vs. Household (includes self-employed) surveys—since the Establishment sample of businesses surveyed is much larger.

Graph: Calculated Risk

Some 257,000 jobs were added to payrolls in January, a surprising total, considering it was in mid-winter. All sectors were hiring, and higher personal incomes and expenditures are the result.

Personal incomes are rising at a healthy 4.6 percent annual clip, and expenditures are rising 3.5 percent per annum. Whereas the so-called PCE price deflator showed just 1.3 percent annual inflation, and it is the preferred Federal Reserve inflation indicator.

So we have once again a goldilocks economy—not too hot or cold—with low prices fueling robust consumption. That is why consumers are remaining confident of their financial future, as the latest confidence and sentiment surveys confirm.

Buttressing that optimism is a little noticed Misery Index that only pops up when there is an economic inflection point, such as now with the uncertainty as to when the Fed will begin to raise interest rates. The Misery Index that combines unemployment and inflation rates is at an all-time low, at the moment. The last time it was this low is 2006, during the housing bubble.

It is the sum of the unemployment + inflation rates, which today are 5.7 percent + 1.3 percent, respectively, which equals 7 percent! Less misery is less spending pain felt by the consumer. And less pain means shopping becomes more pleasurable, hence fuels higher profits and more job formation.

We therefore see solid job formation in 2015, even if interest rates begin to rise sometime later in the year.

It is hard to believe, but prospective presidential candidate Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s main platform seems to be his antipathy towards education, and higher education, in particular. He has obfuscated his near hatred of higher education to date by getting his Republican-Controlled Legislature to first ban public union collective bargaining, especially unions for teachers and public health nurses.

But the veil that has obscured his anti-education agenda is lifting. His latest salvo is directed at the University of Wisconsin. He proposes not only to cut its budget, but proposed downsizing its mission from that of higher education to supply workers, whoever they might be. Walker’s new budget proposal would slash $300 million from the University of Wisconsin system over the next two years. That’s a 13 percent reduction in state funding.

That might be explained by the poor performance of the Wisconsin economy since he took office—an economy now ranked below all other comparable Midwestern states.

A harbinger of what Walker might face came in an immediate uproar on social media this month after his staff proposed changing the university’s focus on the pursuit of truth, known as the “Wisconsin Idea,” to a grittier focus on “workforce needs.”

"Inherent in this broad mission are methods of instruction, research, extended training and public service designed to educate people and improve the human condition," is part of the University of Wisconsin’s mission statement.

What is wrong with that mission, you ask? It speaks to a well-educated mind, is Walker’s problem, apparently. If Walker gets his way, that sentence, along with "Basic to every purpose of the system is the search for truth," would be entirely cut from the charter. Walker also seeks to cut statements reinforcing the university’s commitment to working with out-of-state institutions and its prioritization of "programs with emphasis on state and national needs."

In its place, Walker proposes language stating Wisconsin only provides a state education because it is constitutionally required and among its top priorities are meeting "workforce needs." So the U. of Wisconsin should be down-sized to a trade school?

On reflection, Walker’s anti-education agenda fits right in with the current Republican Party’s prejudice against modern education in general, scientific knowledge and empirical facts in particular, such as the denial of global warming. Republicans have even proposed abolishing the Department of Education, a cabinet position, which helps to keep their supporters in the poorer red states literally ignorant of those facts that would better their lives.

It was in 2011 that Walker pushed through a law, Act 10, that slashed the power of public employee unions to bargain, and cut pay for most public sector workers. As a special slap to teachers, Walker exempted the unions of police, firefighters and state troopers from the changes in collective bargaining rights but not educators.

Teachers protested for a long time, closing schools for days, but the law passed, and the impact on teachers unions in Wisconsin has been dramatic: according to this piece by Washington Past columnist Robert Samuels. The state branch of the National Education Association, once 100,000 strong, has seen its membership drop by a third, and the American Federation of Teachers, which organized in the college system, has seen a 50 percent decline.

The effect on Wisconsin’s economy has been even more dramatic. The latest comprehensive state employment data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) reveals that Wisconsin continues to lag both the national rate of job growth as well as the rates of employment gain in most other states. Between December 2012 and 2013, Wisconsin gained 26,816 jobs, posting an annual employment growth rate of 0.98 percent, significantly trailing the national job growth rate of 1.75 percent during the same period.

Thus, Wisconsin’s year-over-year job growth in fourth quarter of 2013 was just slightly over half the national rate – a level of underperformance that has been consistent since 2011. Overall, Wisconsin ranked 37th among the 50 states in the rate of total employment growth between December 2012-13. Wisconsin trailed every single neighboring Midwestern state (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, and Ohio) in year-over-year employment growth between December 2012-13.

Walker is destroying Wisconsin’s economy, in other words. Right now he is pushing to demolish union organizing once and for all with his proposal to make Wisconsin a Right to Work state, which will further depress its economy. And this man wants to run for President of all 50 states?

Oh, the winter is freezing consumers, as I’ve said! It affected January existing-home sales, but the NAR’s January Pending Home Sales index rose sharply 1.7 percent. So pending sales of contracts signed may give a boost to existing-home sales in coming months that fell slightly in January.

Part of the reason for slightly lower home sales, according to the NAR, is that homeowners aren’t changing homes every 7 years on average as they used to. It’s now 10 years, probably due to the busted housing bubble, loss of so much housing equity, and the Great Recession, of course.

But this marks the fifth consecutive month of year-over-year gains for pending sales with each month accelerating the previous month’s gain, said the NAR.

Lawrence Yun, NAR chief economist, says for the most part buyers in January were able to overcome tight supply which highlights the underlying demand that exists in today’s market. “Contract activity is convincingly up compared to a year ago despite comparable inventory levels,” he said. “The difference this year is the positive factors supporting stronger sales, such as slightly improving credit conditions, more jobs and slower price growth.”

“All indications point to modest sales gains as we head into the spring buying season,” says Yun. “However, the pace will greatly depend on how much upward pressure the impact of low inventory will have on home prices. Appreciation anywhere near double-digits isn’t healthy or sustainable in the current economic environment.”

He is right, of course. With consumer confidence is at an all-time, post-recession high, which also bodes well for housing demand—though February’s consumer confidence index fell 7.4 points to 96.4 from a revised 103.8 in January which was a 7-1/2 year high.

The dip was centered in the expectations component which fell a very steep 9.8 points to 87.2. Could it just be the winter blahs, when jobs are harder to find in part because winter weather keeps consumers from spending more?

The second main component of the confidence index, consumers’ present situation, also dipped but less severely, down 2.7 points to 110.2. Here, a closely watched sub-component, jobs currently hard to get, rose 1.6 percentage points to 26.2 percent which is mild indication of weakness for the monthly employment report that comes out this Friday, let us not forget.

The employment consensus is for 230,000 (Wrightson ICAP) to 235,000 (Bloomberg) jobs, a decline in the unemployment rate to 5.6 percent (reversing last month’s surprise uptick), a 0.2 percent increase in average hourly earnings and an unchanged 34.6-hour workweek.

February unemployment reports tend to start out slow and be revised in coming months, as it has in past years—by as much as 50,000 additional jobs, which would boost consumers’ attitudes.

Reuter’s Wrightson ICAP Research says February nonfarm payrolls have been revised over the subsequent two reports in each of the past five years by an average of more than 50K. Their forecast assumes that February nonfarm payroll growth this year will end up somewhere around 280K, so the preliminary estimate probably won’t be quite as strong as the final value. (Their forecast also assumes that the net revision to December and January this month will be positive but probably 25K or less).